What do you think?
Rate this book
Allowing the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life: Its Measure and Form
In 1920, Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche, two German professors of high regard, published their two part argument that there were lives that were not worthy of living, and society not only had the right, it had the duty, to put such lives out of their 'misery.'
Binding and Hoche were not radical racists. They were not National Socialists or intellectual henchmen for the Nazis. They were scholars, merely rendering their sober judgement on a topic based on advances in science and ethics.
How then did their book serve as a catalyst for Hitler's horrors? Few realize that before there were 'extermination' camps, there was the "Action T4" program, that quietly eliminated mentally ill and disabled people of all ages... and these were fellow Germans! The techniques for mass murder were mastered in the T4 program and later exported to the concentration camps. From beginning to end, these policies were considered medical in nature, and thus doctors--who had imbibed on Binding and Hoche's ethical arguments--were front and center in their implementation.
In this new translation of "Die Freigabe der Vernichtung Lebensunwerten Lebens" by Dr. Cristina Modak, commissioned by the Policy Intersections Research Center, readers can see for themselves what ideas drove the Holocaust. They are invited to consider whether or not any of them might seem familiar.
Binding and Hoche were not radical racists. They were not National Socialists or intellectual henchmen for the Nazis. They were scholars, merely rendering their sober judgement on a topic based on advances in science and ethics.
How then did their book serve as a catalyst for Hitler's horrors? Few realize that before there were 'extermination' camps, there was the "Action T4" program, that quietly eliminated mentally ill and disabled people of all ages... and these were fellow Germans! The techniques for mass murder were mastered in the T4 program and later exported to the concentration camps. From beginning to end, these policies were considered medical in nature, and thus doctors--who had imbibed on Binding and Hoche's ethical arguments--were front and center in their implementation.
In this new translation of "Die Freigabe der Vernichtung Lebensunwerten Lebens" by Dr. Cristina Modak, commissioned by the Policy Intersections Research Center, readers can see for themselves what ideas drove the Holocaust. They are invited to consider whether or not any of them might seem familiar.
- GenresHistoryNonfiction
120 pages, Kindle Edition
First published December 17, 2012
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
January 2, 2017
It's barely an exaggeration to say that this book created the clinical basis of Nazi Germany's "final solution." Co-authored by a judicial expert (Binding) and leading psychiatrist (Hoche), this relatively small text played a large role in the justification of the first state programs to round up, institutionalize, and eventually execute thousands and thousands of German citizens whom the state identified as "life unworthy of life."
It was with the inspiration and support provided by this book (1920) that the Nazi government initiated Akt T4 (1930s). The program targeted the mentally ill and physically disabled, and when techniques for carrying out both "voluntary" and involuntary executions were sufficiently developed, Akt T4 was replaced by the expanded horrors of the Holocaust.
Most of the book is chillingly clinical and detached. But there are "findings" and "conclusions" that will stop you in your tracks, and I suspect that many readers will simply have to put it down from time to time. Its relevance to current policy discussions in the United States is disturbingly obvious, and not without historical precedent.
It was with the inspiration and support provided by this book (1920) that the Nazi government initiated Akt T4 (1930s). The program targeted the mentally ill and physically disabled, and when techniques for carrying out both "voluntary" and involuntary executions were sufficiently developed, Akt T4 was replaced by the expanded horrors of the Holocaust.
Most of the book is chillingly clinical and detached. But there are "findings" and "conclusions" that will stop you in your tracks, and I suspect that many readers will simply have to put it down from time to time. Its relevance to current policy discussions in the United States is disturbingly obvious, and not without historical precedent.
September 16, 2016
I honestly do not know how to rate this book. It begins with an essay about the conclusions in this document, and how the prejudices in our day are still being shaped by this document. This German lawyer and doctor may not have intended to lay the groundwork for the death camps, but they did. They helped shape the tone of the conversation that made it seem perfectly reasonable to treat people as disposable commodities.
It's important to read the arguments of those who believed that it was important to remove people who drain society from the equation. I sure wanted to read the book with my eyes shut, though!
It's important to read the arguments of those who believed that it was important to remove people who drain society from the equation. I sure wanted to read the book with my eyes shut, though!
Read
March 12, 2021This booklet, released in 1920, inspired the Nazi T-4 euthanasia program. Binding (a jurist) and Hoche (a doctor) spin a machiavellian web of cunning compassion, first for suicide, then for assisted suicide, then for euthanasia with the patient's consent, and finally for euthanasia of non-consenting individuals who burden society.
They argue that killing "life devoid of value"—namely the terminally ill and "incurable idiots" (¶¶216–218)—is justified based on the suffering these persons endure and the economic and social burden that "keep[ing] alive all kinds of weaklings" imposes (¶227). In the past, however, euthanasia "has been retarded partly because of the Christian way of thinking" (¶230), which "places too much value on mere continuation of existence and asks too high a sacrifice" to care for the weak and vulnerable (¶250). Binding and Hoche propose an alternative solution: "We doctors know that in the interest of the whole human organism, single, less valuable members have to be abandoned and pushed out" (¶231).
Their new, more enlightened ethic resulted in the killing of about 300,000 mentally handicapped persons, thousands of children for reasons such as "odd shaped ears" or "bed wetting," and tens of thousands of elderly Germans who were classified as "useless eaters." The "carefully designed safeguards" (¶244) that Binding and Hoche proposed—an expert committee to approve or deny the euthanasia—were of little consolation to the victims gassed at Hartheim Castle or frozen to death in ice water for research.
Of course, they anticipated that the euthanasia panels would make mistakes. "In cases of proven error [in which the euthanasia panel has mistakenly killed a patient who would have recovered], humanity has lost one human life. After successful recuperation, this life might have been quite precious; but in most cases it would not have been a high quality life and would not have been more than of mediocre value. The relatives, of course, may feel a deep loss. But mankind loses many of its members because of erroneous actions, one more or less really does not matter much" (¶195).
All this, in the name of compassion. "[T]he motto for this movement has become: 'The right to death with dignity'" (¶134). Sound familiar?
They argue that killing "life devoid of value"—namely the terminally ill and "incurable idiots" (¶¶216–218)—is justified based on the suffering these persons endure and the economic and social burden that "keep[ing] alive all kinds of weaklings" imposes (¶227). In the past, however, euthanasia "has been retarded partly because of the Christian way of thinking" (¶230), which "places too much value on mere continuation of existence and asks too high a sacrifice" to care for the weak and vulnerable (¶250). Binding and Hoche propose an alternative solution: "We doctors know that in the interest of the whole human organism, single, less valuable members have to be abandoned and pushed out" (¶231).
Their new, more enlightened ethic resulted in the killing of about 300,000 mentally handicapped persons, thousands of children for reasons such as "odd shaped ears" or "bed wetting," and tens of thousands of elderly Germans who were classified as "useless eaters." The "carefully designed safeguards" (¶244) that Binding and Hoche proposed—an expert committee to approve or deny the euthanasia—were of little consolation to the victims gassed at Hartheim Castle or frozen to death in ice water for research.
Of course, they anticipated that the euthanasia panels would make mistakes. "In cases of proven error [in which the euthanasia panel has mistakenly killed a patient who would have recovered], humanity has lost one human life. After successful recuperation, this life might have been quite precious; but in most cases it would not have been a high quality life and would not have been more than of mediocre value. The relatives, of course, may feel a deep loss. But mankind loses many of its members because of erroneous actions, one more or less really does not matter much" (¶195).
All this, in the name of compassion. "[T]he motto for this movement has become: 'The right to death with dignity'" (¶134). Sound familiar?
July 13, 2018
Todavía no termino de procesar lo que leí en este libro, pero en 2018 sigue siendo una lectura necesaria para los interesados en temas de ética. Ciertamente no me gustaría que lo leyeran todos. El prólogo explica que las ideas planteadas en este libro se usaron como base para la política de exterminio del tercer reich. También explica que la defensa de Binding y Hoche es fría, científica y técnica, lo cual en gran medida es cierto, pero los pocos, poquísimos argumentos morales que hacen están ideológicamente cargados hacia un utilitarismo que, al menos en el texto, no fueron capaces de examinar, lo cual lo convierte en un texto peligroso. Este libro demuestra que las ideas no examinadas son peligrosas. Estas assumptions ideológicas sí se exploran en el prólogo por lo que es muy importante leerlo previo al texto. Dijo Daniel Dennet: there is no philosophy-free science, there's only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.
Es un texto valioso para quienes tenemos interés en las justificaciones éticas de temas como el aborto, la eutanasia, la eugenesia y demás, ya que básicamente lleva algunos de esos argumentos hasta sus últimas consecuencias, y al menos a mí, me ha obligado a replantearme como entiendo esos argumentos.
Es un texto valioso para quienes tenemos interés en las justificaciones éticas de temas como el aborto, la eutanasia, la eugenesia y demás, ya que básicamente lleva algunos de esos argumentos hasta sus últimas consecuencias, y al menos a mí, me ha obligado a replantearme como entiendo esos argumentos.
April 4, 2022
Having given the book five stars, I should add why in case someone rushes off to buy it as a "good read".
It is a chilling, unpleasant book that should be read by people seeking to understand eugenics and Malthusianism. It provides the medical and legal justification for killing "Life Unworthy of Life." The authors claimed, post war, that it was a theoretical book and that they never envisaged that someone would put into practice - an assertion this writer finds hard to believe!
Five stars were awarded because it is an authoritative book and this edition includes Anthony Horvath's excellent introduction.
Readers interested in this topic will also be interested in "After Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?" https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261
It is a chilling, unpleasant book that should be read by people seeking to understand eugenics and Malthusianism. It provides the medical and legal justification for killing "Life Unworthy of Life." The authors claimed, post war, that it was a theoretical book and that they never envisaged that someone would put into practice - an assertion this writer finds hard to believe!
Five stars were awarded because it is an authoritative book and this edition includes Anthony Horvath's excellent introduction.
Readers interested in this topic will also be interested in "After Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?" https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261
June 28, 2023
Haunting!
Amazed and horrified, I could not put this book down. Incredible analysis in the simplest, most interesting and understandable way possible. So much of what you read in this book is still present and relevant. It's shocking!
Amazed and horrified, I could not put this book down. Incredible analysis in the simplest, most interesting and understandable way possible. So much of what you read in this book is still present and relevant. It's shocking!
Want to read
September 23, 2021in 1920, German lawyer Karl Binding and German psychiatrist, Alfred Hoche, co-authored this book. This book greatly influenced Hitler's view of Euthanasia. #fascinatingbooksbymorons
March 14, 2024
Interesting book even though the contents is awful. At times difficult to read but I needed to in order to understand Hitlers thinking during the holocaust.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews